Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to suggest to my good friend from California, the experts which he referred to do not know squat. I have 60,000 and over of pilots who want this legislation. Again, as a captain myself, I know how it feels not to be armed. As history will show us, the protection of the wheelhouse and the cockpit are vitally important. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) mentioned this. The reality is that now there is an order to shoot down the airplane. If there is a hijacking with passengers aboard, to me that is a ridiculous solution when it can be stopped at the cockpit. As was said before, this is nothing new. Until it became politically correct, the pilots armed themselves as they have done through history to defend that cockpit and defend that plane and defend those passengers. And now we have experts. Who are they? A man that belonged to the ATF, an individual very frankly that is being told very frankly what he should be saying. This is incorrect. This is my bill. This is a bill for the American people. This is a bill, in fact, to defend those people that fly every day. By the captain of the ship, they are his responsibility. If there is an infringement upon that cockpit by a terrorist, he has a right to eliminate that individual, to defend his passengers. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and his working with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation. I would like to remind Members of some things. Number one, I like the idea of possibly studying a taser weapon or futuristic weapon like what we see in movies, but I personally want that pilot to have a lethal weapon on board. If I had a terrorist trying to take my ship, I want to have a lethal weapon in my hand. I want to make sure that person does not even have a chance. With a taser, he has a chance. I have some experience with those types of weapons, and if a person was a true terrorist, he would wear protective armament and would need to be struck in the head. Until that time, he would be able to circumvent a taser. A taser does not immobilize a person immediately. A lethal weapon would. Properly trained, that terrorist will be eliminated and my ship will be protected and my passengers will arrive safely. This is a small step forward. We are not sure, and neither are the terrorists sure, which pilots will be armed. I believe that is a deterrent in itself. I believe there will be some hesitancy on that airplane. I will go back in history, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) mentioned the FAA repealed this action last summer so they could not carry a weapon. I would say if anyone should be criticized, it is the inactivity of the FAA. The inability to make a decision even today with the TSA, we have the FAA saying we have certified new equipment for screening of people or baggage so we are not going to use it. If there is any fault, it is with the two agencies: One old, outdated, antiquated, an agency that does not take steps forward in a positive fashion, the FAA; and a new agency which still follows that lead. I think the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) said it very correctly, we have to have more oversight and some demands for action instead of delay so we can implement what we thought we were doing in the Airline Security Act, that we thought we would have a slim and trim agency that would get the job done and the passengers would be screened and put on the plane on time. That is not occurring because of the inactivity of both agencies. I say to those who say no to this, I am not going to rely on the airlines. I am not going to rely on the TSA or those agencies saying, let us look at it. I am going to say this is going to be done with a small percentage of our pilots. And hopefully after 2 years, with a larger percentage of our pilots, because it is the last line of defense. I remind Members as one who has carried weapons most of his life, I will tell Members that 9-11 would not have happened if that pilot had a weapon at the time of that hijacking. That would not have happened. I say let us pass this legislation, let us go forward and protect passengers. I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I can only echo the words that have been said by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica). This legislation will not change everything overnight, but it will expedite the process of building airports, we think, in a more expeditious time period. As the gentleman mentioned, the airports built in the Asian market were built in a short period of time, and Seattle has had 19 years and has not even flown an airplane off the new runway that is going to be built. Mr. Speaker, this bill is needed at this time. Prior to 9-11, the biggest complaint was congestion and delays in our airports. I believe although air traffic is down now, it will return in the near future; and we need these new airports as our population grows. We need these new airports as commerce grows, and this is a way to get these airports built on time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4481, the Airport Streamlining Approval Process Act of 2002. I am pleased to be moving forward with this legislation. Last year, airport gridlock dominated the aviation debate. Passengers were bitterly complaining about the intolerable delays they were forced to endure. We examined those issues and found that one of the main reasons for the congestion was the lack of airport capacity. There was a crying need for new runways and improved airport infrastructure. Air-21 provided the funding for these improvements, but bureaucratic red tape often held up needed construction. Now attention has shifted to airport security, and rightly so. Air traffic is down and the need for airport capacity improvements is less compelling. But, I am confident that air traffic will pick up again. And when it does, congestion and delays will return with a vengeance unless we do something about it now. That is why I introduced this bill. This legislation directs the Department of Transportation to take a lead role in the environmental review process. DOT will coordinate the actions of other agencies and will be responsible for determining the ``purpose and need'' and reasonable alternative to the project. I do not claim that this bill will build new runways overnight, but it will streamline the process and help airports meet the demands of air travelers more quickly. And, it should be noted, it will do this without undermining the environmental laws or the ability of citizens to have their voices heard in the process. I would like to thank chairman Mica, as well as Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Lipinski, for their help and cooperation on this legislation. There were some difficult issues in this bill and I very much appreciate the bipartisan approach to resolving them. I urge a yes vote on H.R. 4481.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Emergency Directed Rail Service Act. This legislation is intended to prepare the nation for the possibility that Amtrak will follow through on its threat to shut down. This bill is part of my effort to make sure the country is as prepared as possible should that shutdown occur. Members are no doubt aware that Amtrak is in an extremely desperate financial situation. Amtrak contends it needs $200 million in additional cash or it will cease operations on or about July 1, 2002. Although the Administration is currently considering an Amtrak application to use the Railroad Rehabilitation and Infrastructure Financing (RRIF) loan and loan guarantee program, it is doubtful Amtrak qualifies under the statute, under the formal regulations that govern the program, or under the informal rules imposed by the Department of Transportation and the Office of Management and Budget. Similarly, although I would support an appropriation under the right conditions to help Amtrak in the short-term while the Congress and the Administration address Amtrak for the long-term, it is unclear whether the appropriations process will be able to provide Amtrak any funds before July 1, 2002. I am particularly concerned about the effect on freight movements in the Northeast and on commuter operations around the country and consequently on our national economy. An Amtrak shutdown could adversely affect the economy in the Northeast United States because considerable freight would not be able to get to its destination, especially plants where the Northeast Corridor is the only rail access. Moreover, commuters in the Northeast and around the country may not be able to get to work either because the commuter authority operates on Amtrak infrastructure or because the commuter authority uses Amtrak employees to operate or maintain its trains. Accordingly, on Monday I wrote Linda Morgan, the Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board, and asked whether the Board had the power to direct freight and commuter service that would be adversely affected by an Amtrak shutdown. Ms. Morgan responded yesterday that the STB was unclear whether it would have the power to direct freight and commuter service in the event of an Amtrak shutdown and that its emergency powers have ``never been tested before in this context . . . and . . . could be challenged in court.'' This country needs someone to have the power to address the fallout on freight railroads and commuters if Amtrak shuts down. The legislation I introduce today does just that. It makes it clear that the STB has the authority it needs to act in the event Amtrak ceases service. In particular, the bill would give the STB the authority to order the continued maintenance, signaling, and dispatching of the Northeast Corridor. It would give the STB the authority to use federal funds to compensate the entity that conducts these services and to indemnify it with respect to any increased liability exposure. It would also authorize the STB to direct service and to provide interim financial assistance to commuter operations around the country affected by an Amtrak shutdown. Further, current law requires that to the extent possible the Amtrak employees who already perform the work should do the work required by the directed service. A final word of caution. I realize this bill addresses provisions of law relating to the STB and that there are interests out there who will want to attach other STB-related amendments to it. I call on them not to do so. This bill addresses a potential national transportation disaster and is limited solely to the STB's emergency directed service powers. In this case, we must put the national interest above all others.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, it is my intent to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), subcommittee chairman, the balance of my time after I make my opening statement. Mr. Chairman, we all know that safety is enhanced when air traffic controllers guide the planes through the skies and onto the runway. However, many smaller airports lack an air traffic control tower. As a result, passengers and pilots do not benefit from the safety enhancements provided by air traffic controllers. Pilots are on their own, responsible for seeing and avoiding other planes. Currently, the FAA is responsible for building the towers that house the controllers. However, FAA facilities and equipment budget is not large enough to pay for the construction of towers at many smaller airports. Yet many of these smaller airports have commercial passenger service or serve as a very active general aviation airport. These passengers and pilots are entitled to the same level of safety as those used in the larger airports. Recognizing that FAA's construction budget is limited, many smaller airports are willing to use their Airport Improvement Program, AIP, grant money to build the tower. However, under current law, contract tower construction is not listed as eligible for funding under the AIP program. This bill would change the law to allow AIP money to build a new or replacement tower and to equip that tower. The FAA could then contract with a private company to actually operate the tower. The FAA now contracts with private companies to staff towers at 217 airports in 46 States. This contract tower program has benefited from consistent bipartisan backing in Congress. Its track record at small airports shows that it improves air safety, efficiency and security; enhances regional airline service in rural areas; provides significant savings to the FAA in air traffic control costs; and increases economic productivity in smaller communities nationwide. Further, the program's track record has been validated in several comprehensive audits by DOT's Inspector General and is endorsed by participating airports and aviation system users. Given the benefits and support for the contract tower program, additional actions to enhance it are warranted. By opening up another source of funding for tower construction, this bill will enhance the existing contract tower program and increase safety at small airports. It does not cost the Federal Government any additional money because the AIP grant money is already provided for in AIR-21. The bill merely gives the airport and the FAA another purpose, tower construction, for which this grant money can be used. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the subcommittee chairman, for the purposes of control.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce a resolution that would express support for President George W. Bush's withdrawal of the United States from the 1972 Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty. Today marks the conclusion of the 6-month notification of the withdrawal from the ABM Treaty by the United States. My legislation reaffirms that the United States' national security has fundamentally changed since 1972. Not only do the Russians and Chinese have ballistic missile arsenals that are capable of reaching the United States, but so do a growing number of countries that are hostile to the United States' interests, such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq. This resolution simply says that the Congress supports the decision by the President to withdraw the United States from the ABM Treaty in accordance with article 15 of the treaty. It also states that Congress supports efforts to provide for the establishment of a robust layered missile defense system to protect the United States and its allies. Very frankly, the United States faces new and complex threats. September 11, 2001, showed the new threats to our national security and the potential threats we face by more than 32 countries that are working on ballistic missile development. The new threats involve states with considerably fewer missiles with less accuracy, yield, reliability and range. However, emerging ballistic missile systems can potentially kill tens of thousands, or even millions, of Americans, depending on the warhead and intended target. I believe we cannot allow these countries to use ballistic missiles as instruments of blackmail against the United States and its allies. The way we can and must defend our homeland is through the development of a layered missile defense system, a layered system that would violate the terms of the ABM Treaty. Clearly, the day has come to withdraw from this dated and ineffective document that was created more than 30 years ago during a different time and under different conditions than those that face our national security today. I would also like to submit the following sponsors: The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Jeff Miller), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Maritime Transportation Anti-terrorism Act of 2002; but I would also like to rise in appreciation for the chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) for the work that he has done on this legislation, to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) for her work on this legislation. Madam Speaker, I would suggest respectfully that this is about the best we can do at this time. It is badly needed, but I would also like to suggest that we have to make sure as we pass this legislation that the intent of what we are trying to do is implemented and does not go far beyond what we are suggesting in this legislation. It is crucially important that our ports are protected, and we must protect them without interfering with commerce, and we will do so. One of goals of this legislation is to make sure that we will have the ability to not only look at what is on our ships, what is inside our containers, but also the crews of those ships and those that work within our ports. I would also like to suggest that a port is a likely target and we have to accept that fact. The disruption that would occur, the damage that would happen, the interference with our commerce, lord only knows how much devastation would occur. This bill is a step in the right direction. But, again, I must suggest, Madam Speaker, that what we do here is not necessarily the end result. It is the result of what the agencies do and how they work together. I want to suggest respectfully that those agencies that have the responsibility, TSA, Immigration, Customs, et cetera, have a responsibility to work together and to share information together so we can make sure that we have a secure port system within our Nation. I hope the American people realize that this is an attempt to make sure that no ports will suffer what happened on September 11, that we will protect our constituencies, we will protect our trade, we will protect this great United States with this legislation.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the statements of my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), are absolutely true. I am hoping we can convince the leadership on this side of the aisle, and, of course, the leadership on that side of the aisle, that what is sent to us from the other body in the waning hours of any session has been done inappropriately and that we have to have the time to make sure we are actually following the proper procedure and that we do not rush to leave this body and leave, very frankly, some things done inappropriately, as were done last year in October, because we do have to rectify that now. I have let it be known to Members that went back to their districts and made statements of what they had achieved, and they had not achieved that, that I understand their dilemma. So this is a one-shot deal for them, and I hope everybody watching this in their office who are on that list makes sure they understand this is the only time they are going to get a chance to get projects agreed to, as it goes through our committee, or at least in consultation with the chairman and myself, and of course the ranking member. Because that is the appropriate way to do it. The other body, the only way we can control that body is to reject what they send to us, and that takes a great deal of courage. I am hoping we have the courage to say no, not until we take the time to do what is right legislatively, with a great deal of deliberation, and the ability to do the job that we have been elected to do. This has been going on now for about 4 or 5 years, and I think it is time the House stands up and says no, this is not going to happen, you are not going to send us a great big bill, bigger than that room itself, and not know what is in it. My staff and myself have spent time, primarily my staff, and I will admit that, just researching what was done last year to find out what projects were put in that were not authorized and, very frankly, took monies from projects that were authorized; and we do not think that is the correct way to go. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3694) to provide for highway infrastructure investment at the guaranteed funding level contained in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, as amended.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3694, the Highway Funding Restoration Act. This bipartisan bill has 316 cosponsors in the House of Representatives and the other body companion measure, S. 1917, is cosponsored by 74 Members of that body. I want to particularly thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, for his support for the restoration of highway funding. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) included in the House budget resolution a provision for the outlay of these funds. I support enforcement of the budget resolution adopted by the House. Mr. Speaker, I am working with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) to address in the future a better method of calculating the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority, which we refer to as RABA. We need to more accurately align highway spending with highway revenues, while maintaining predictability and stability in highway funding levels. There is a clear and strong consensus that H.R. 3694 is the right approach to restore proposed cuts to Federal-aid highway funding in the fiscal year 2003 budget. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3694 restores not less than $4.4 billion to the Federal-aid highway construction programs for fiscal year 2003, and ensures that these funds will be spent according to the formula established by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, otherwise called TEA-21. I am pleased that the leadership of the House has agreed to this expedited process. I am confident that the Senate will also take timely action on the bill before the fiscal year 2003 appropriations cycle is well underway. Mr. Speaker, this bill is vitally necessary for three reasons. First, State Departments of Transportation cannot absorb the proposed cut of $8.5 billion below the level of funding received in the fiscal year of 2002, a 27 percent program reduction. Second, transportation spending keeps people employed. More than 180,000 family-wage jobs are associated with the $4.4 billion funding restoration in this bill. Third, cash balances in the Highway Trust Fund, the dedicated revenue source for highway and transit construction, are sufficient to accommodate this funding restoration. Again, I want to thank the full committee ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit; and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the subcommittee ranking member, along with the full membership of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and all of the other 242 Members of the House urging immediate passage of the bill. Mr. Speaker, again, I cannot stress enough the importance of this bill. It does restore the funding level where it should be to build our highways so that we can keep the 180,000 people employed and, more than that, increase the infrastructure necessities in this country and keep them on the right track. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address one thing that has been brought up by the previous speakers. I do believe this is, in fact, a stimulus package. It is not as large as we would like to have it. There has also been mention, though, about the President's budget cut, and I will have to say that is true; but I also say I have been under seven Presidents since I have been in this body, probably one more than my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). Under our Constitution the President, regardless of what party, has the responsibility to submit a budget. And as I tell every constituent that comes into our office, that is his responsibility. But it is our responsibility as a House of the people to write the budget. We write the budget. We raise the money for it from the people, and we designate how it shall be spent. That is our role. I am extremely pleased that 317 Members of this Congress decided in this case that it was more important to, in fact, restore the guaranteed money for the construction of highways and bridges and improving our highway system than we were to take the recommendation of another branch of this great government of ours. But I never hold it against any one of the Presidents for that responsibility of submitting the budget. It makes us do our work a little bit more efficiently and a little bit better. As I mentioned in my opening statement, a whole lot of other people, including the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), has recognized the importance of the construction of a highway system within this great Nation of ours. We have just begun. We have rail to improve. We have, again, air to improve. We have shipping ports to improve. And the responsibility of the committee, which is totally bipartisan, the responsibility of that committee is to make sure that the people of America recognize the importance of a modern transportation system being put in place for the future. And I would just like to say this is one tiny infant step in the right direction. We must continue that as we reauthorize TEA 21, as we go forth with new rail legislation, as we go forth with other legislation packages and that we will do. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record an exchange of letters between the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), Chairman of the Committee on the Budget, which I referred to earlier. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC, May 2, 2002. Hon. Jim Nussle, Chairman, Committee on Budget, Cannon Building, Washington,

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to expand Alaska Native contracting of Federal land management functions and activities and to promote hiring of Alaska Natives by the Federal Government within the State of Alaska. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) was enacted on December 2, 1980 as Public Law 96-487. Since then, Congress has passed several public laws which have amended ANILCA. The 1980 ANILCA amendments expanded the federal refuge and park systems in Alaska for the purposes of protecting habitat for fish and wildlife, to conserve fish and wildlife populations, and to provide the continued opportunity for subsistence uses by local Alaska Native residents and to protect archaeological sites associated with Alaska Native cultures. Many rural Alaska native communities are located within close proximity of the refuges and serve an important part of the culture and ways of Alaska natives and other residents in rural Alaska. Congress, through sections 1307 and 1308 of the 1980 ANILCA amendments, directed the Secretary of the Interior to establish programs whereby Alaska natives were to be given preference in hiring, and to establish programs whereby Native lands were given preference for siting of conservation service unit facilities. The provisions also recognized that the Natives whose front and back yards were now part of the federal parks and preserves systems were the best individuals to be involved in the administering of the lands because of their special knowledge or expertise concerning the natural or cultural resources of such areas. Public Law 106-488 authorized demonstration projects in four areas in northwest Alaska: (1) Bering Land Bridge National Preserve (2) Cape Krusentern National Monument (3) Kobuk Valley National Park and (4) Noatak National Preserve in fiscal years 2000 and 2001. No demonstration project has been entered in either fiscal years 2000 or 2001 with the above named four areas at the Department of the Interior. It has been twenty two (22) years since the 1980 ANILCA amendments were enacted, and the contracting and native hires provisions remain unfulfilled by the Department of the Interior. This bill would remedy this by directing the Department of the Interior to enter into demonstration projects with no less than six eligible Alaska Native tribes or tribal organizations in fiscal years 2003 and 2004. This bill is a result of the legislative council of the Alaska Federation of Natives to address the contracting and hiring preference for Alaska native entities pursuant to the 1980 ANILCA amendments.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague, Congressman J.D. Hayworth of Arizona to amend the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). This bill clarifies Congress's intent with regard to ICWA. Many of the bill's provisions are included in direct response to tribal comments on H.R. 2644, an ICWA bill I introduced last year in response to tribal concerns. H.R. 2644 was drafted with the input of the Association on American Indian Affairs, Tanana Chiefs Conference, National Indian Child Welfare Association, National Congress of American Indians, the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys, various tribes and other concerned organizations. The changes that the present bill makes to H.R. 2644 also reflect input from each of these named organizations, although the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys has not had the opportunity to review a number of these. It has been my policy to have all affected parties participate in the legislative process to help finalize a bill for passage. With this in mind, it is my intent to include the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys later in the legislative process. In 2002, we still have American Indian and Alaska Native children being adopted out of families, tribal communities and states. We continue to have this problem in Alaska and I have been asked to introduce amendments to further clarify the ICWA. The amendments include, among others, the following provisions: Requires detailed notice to Indian tribes in all voluntary child custody proceedings and to parents and tribes in all involuntary proceedings. Clarifies right of Indian tribes to intervene in all voluntary state court child custody proceedings, provided that the tribe files a notice of intent to intervene or a written objection within 45 days of receiving notice of a voluntary termination of parental rights or within 100 days of receiving notice of a particular adoptive placement, and certifies that a child is a member or eligible for membership at the time of its intervention. Requires notice to extended family members and recognizes their right to intervene in state child custody proceedings. Requires attorneys, public and private agencies to provide detailed information to Indian parents of their rights under ICWA. Limits parents' rights to withdraw consent to an adoption to 6 months after relinquishment of the child or 30 days after the filing of an adoption petition, whichever is later. Clarifies tribal jurisdiction in Alaska. Facilitates ability of tribes without reservations, including tribes in Alaska and Oklahoma, or with disestablished reservations to assume jurisdiction over child custody proceedings. Narrows the grounds upon which state courts can refuse to transfer cases to tribal courts. Clarifies tribal court authority to declare children wards of the tribal court. Defines the circumstances under which state ICWA violations may be reviewed by federal courts and provides for federal review of state ICWA compliance. Provides for criminal sanctions for anyone who assists a person to lie about their Indian ancestry for the purposes of applying the ICWA. Allows state courts to enter enforceable orders providing for visitation or contact between tribes, natural parents, extended family and an adopted child. Extends ICWA to cover children of state-recognized Indian tribes (in some cases), and children who reside or are domiciled on a reservation and are the child or grandchildren of a member, but who are not eligible for tribal membership. Makes it easier for adoptees to gain access to their birth records. I think it is appropriate that Congress further clarifies the ICWA to ensure that American Indian and Alaska Native children are not snatched from their families or tribal communities without cause. In July of 2001, the Child Welfare League of America offered American Indians something they have longed to hear for more than three decades: an apology for taking American Indian children. ``It was genuinely believed that Indian children were better off in white homes,'' said Terry Cross, Executive Director of the National Indian Child Welfare Association. (San Antonio Express News, Sunday, July 1, 2001 Article). That changed in 1978 when Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act. Even now, Cross cites problems. ``Sometimes social workers are not properly trained to identify children as Indian. Or agencies fail to notify tribes of adoptions.'' (San Antonio Express News, Sunday, July 1, 2001 Article). I believe these FY 2002 ICWA amendments to be acceptable legislation which will protect the interests of prospective adoptive parents, Native extended families, and most importantly, American Indian and Alaska Native children. The Committee on Resources will seek additional input from the Department of Justice, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Health and Human Services. I am hopeful that these agencies will again embrace this legislation so that we can affirm this country's commitment to Protect Native American families and promote the best interest of Native children. I urge and welcome support from my colleagues in further clarifying the ICWA to ensure no more American Indian or Alaska Native children are lost.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak briefly on section 312 which says that an approved Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP) that addresses the conservation needs of listed threatened or endangered species obviates the need to designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act. I would like to remind my colleagues of congressional intent and statutory direction when we established INRMPs in the 1997 Amendments to the Sikes Act. I strongly believe that we need to provide our men and women being sent ``in harm's way'' the most thorough and realistic readiness training as possible on our military installations. Let me also express my firm belief that military preparedness and sound stewardship of our natural resources, is not mutually exclusive, they are mutually beneficial. Appropriate land and natural resource management of our installations provides not only for sustainable use for military readiness, but for conservation of our natural resources on public lands under military department jurisdiction. This is the underlying philosophy of the amendments I sponsored to the Sikes Act in 1997 that directed the Secretary of Defense to prepare and implement INRMP's in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and respective State fish and wildlife agencies. Specifically, the Sikes Act directs the Secretary of each military department to prepare and implement an INRMP for each military installation in the United States under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense unless the Secretary determines that the absence of significant natural resources on a particular installation makes preparation of such a plan inappropriate. Section 670a(a)(2) directs that each INRMP shall be prepared ``in cooperation'' with the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and with the head of each appropriate State fish and wildlife agency for the State in which the military installation is located. This section further provides that the resulting INRMP for the military installation ``shall reflect the mutual agreement of the parties concerning conservation, protection and management of fish and wildlife resources.'' I understand that DOD has, in practice, not always involved the other statutory parties in development of an INRMP at an early stage, but instead sought their concurrence to a completed draft. While such a policy might comport with the statutory direction as to ``mutual agreement of the parties,'' it does not comport with the ``preparation in cooperation with'' directive. Cooperation of the statutory parties, begun at the earliest stages of development of an INRMP, is the contemplation of the statute. Such cooperation should go far to reconcile potential differences, and I would like to remind the Department of Defense that we expect the process explicitly contemplated in the Sikes Act to be undertaken by the Department. While there are exemplary INRMPs reflecting this sincere level of involvement, the Department needs to re-commit itself to Congress' direction in the 1997 amendments to the Sikes Act by involving all three parties at the beginning, during development, and during implementation of INRMPs. Consensus building and problem solving throughout the process will most likely facilitate the ``mutual agreement'' required by the statute of the three parties. Finally, I would like to express my strong concerns about the evolution of environmental management practices. I'm strongly against INRMPs becoming something like the environmental impact studies that are required today. Today, EIS documents have become a black hole of time, money and bureaucracy. EIS documents were once two-page documents of environmental consequences. Now EIS documents are thousands of pages long, cost millions of dollars and take years to prepare. Even when good faith efforts have been made to address the minutiae of endless environmental issues in the EIS process, the documents are often subject to litigation, being overturned or disregarded. I want to make it very clear that the creation of the INRMPs where not intended to become a continual EIS process, or as a justification for endless studies on environmental stewardship and management. Proposal for Western Alaska Workforce Development 1. Contact Information--a. Alaska Contact: Wendy Redman, University of Alaska, Box 755000, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775. b. Congressional Office Contact: Ann Gibson, Congressman Don Young's Office, 2111 Rayburn, Washington, DC 20515, 225- 5765. 2. Describe the organization's main activities and whether it is a public, private or non-profit entity. The University of Alaska is Alaska's land grant postsecondary institution and the largest public post-secondary institution in the state. 3. A brief description of the proposal: This is a proposal to continue workforce training in an area of Alaska economically devastated by the failure of the salmon industry. The training effort is to re-train former fisheries workers in other fields where there is employment available. The training areas are office occupations, construction, computer repair and nursing assistants. The primary private economic base in Western Alaska was the salmon fishery. Beginning several years ago, the salmon runs have failed to materialize leaving a dire economic situation. This program is to train workers in new areas and lift their dependence from public assistance. 4. Project costs: The request is for $2.5 million which is all for training equipment, instructors and student stipends. 5. Other funding sources: The University of Alaska contributes approximately $500,000 to the existing training. 6. Federal funding sources: The program did not receive federal funding in FY02. 7. National significance: This program addresses the federal responsibilities when a disaster occurs to assist in economic recovery. It accomplishes this by training workers in new fields where there is employment. The program could be a model for other areas of the nation experiencing similar economic devastation, particularly rural areas.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I will work with him as I have told him before not only on the floor but in private to provide both the general purpose and transportation caps to, among other things, reflect the increase in highway spending. I want to thank the gentleman again for his good work.